Message245534
| Author |
r.david.murray |
| Recipients |
barry, ezio.melotti, michael.foord, r.david.murray, rbcollins, serhiy.storchaka, taleinat |
| Date |
2015年06月19日.22:51:12 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1434754272.95.0.44139150654.issue24412@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
That would not make it simpler. In fact it would make the test code more complex. I'd still need the safeSetUpClass dodge (or repeat the try/except/log in every setUpClass method), and I'd have to have a wrapper function that I passed each cleanup to as an argument to wrap it in a try/except/log, since close would just propagate the exceptions.
I think implementing this parallel to addCleanUp is much cleaner, even if the feature isn't (yet :) in the stdlib. |
|